Last Airworthy MiG-17 Is Up for Sale | Hacker News Reader

Last Airworthy MiG-17 Is Up for Sale

flyingmag.com

44 pointslxm73 comments

The question I really wanted answered was "how much is he asking for it?" I did a lot of searches on various search engines but couldn't find the answer. I guess it falls into that "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" category.

I did find a classified ad for the plane. The owner's phone number is there.

[1] https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...

Last time I checked MiG 15 was $5M.

It’s also going to cost a lot per hour to fly, given it’s age and the state of the labor & parts pool.

Yeah if you're not doing the work yourself, finding someone qualified, someone is going to have to rebuild parts, oh man that's got to be expensive.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of a different Mig?? Mig 15s go for pretty cheap, like in the $100,000 range. I heard one was for sale in Brazil for $60,000. (good luck getting it home!)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-02-13-me-2216-s...

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...

I won’t do research right now, but as I recall airworthy MiG 15 modified to be legal in the US costs much more than museum-grade technically operational unmodified MiG 15.

You can get a Mig-29 for $4M.

I don't think this is the last airworthy Mig-17. Bill Culberson flies N1713P and I believe I saw it fly as recently as 2019 in Alabama. Here is the FlightAware page, and you can see photos in the 2nd link:

https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1713P

https://flightaware.com/photos/aircraft/N1713P

Here's an article about Bill's Mig 17, with photos:

https://planeschemer.com/plane-schemer-blog/mig-17-n1713

Looking at the listing as shared by another poster, it's striking how little the thing weighs:

The empty weight is 8640 lb (3919 kg) and the maximum takeoff weight is 13375 lb (6069 kg).

It's maximum takeoff weight is still well below the empty weight (18,900 lbs) of an F-16.

You're comparing a light, subsonic interceptor with no search radar and primitive missile capabilities (only available on the last versions) to a relatively modern multi-role fighter.

> relatively modern multi-role fighter

F-16 first flight was 45 years ago. Or put other way, F-16 first flight was significantly closer to MiG-17 first flight than F-35 (which gets to represent modern aircraft) first flight (24 years vs 32 years)

And F-16 was explicitly designed to pretty light-weight aircraft for its time, compared to e.g. its contemporary F-15:

> Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, high maneuverability, and a gross weight of less than 20,000 lb (9,100 kg), half that of its counterpart, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

(it did end up bit fatter than that though..)

The F-16's engine alone, is 70% heavier than the VK1 on the MIG-17.

(edited for engine typo)

Modern 'fighter' planes are almost the same size as the bombers of old: B-17 length is 23 meters and SU-27 length is 22 meters.

I was really shocked when I saw them next to each other on some photo.

A small, modern fighter like the F-16 can carry a much higher bomb load, as well.

> modern fighter like the F-16

Modern fighter? Having first flown in 1974 (46 years ago), it is actually closer to B-17 - first flight in 1935 (39 years prior) - than to us.

I think that using fourth and fifth generation to describe aircraft is better, especially when you combine it with production status.

For example, both the SU-27 and F-16 are clearly fourth generation, and both currently in production. Same with the F-15. They may have origins that are quite a long time ago, but they're still effective aircraft in many scenarios.

Fifth generation would be F-22, F-35, J-20, FC-31, and if you want to be generous, the Su-57. Stealth is the primary attribute, though supercruise is sometimes considered a key attribute as well.

I wouldn't argue for or against the use of the term "modern" to describe the F-16 since that's the most boring thing ever, but it is the most common fighter in service today, with multiple active production lines.

This, and the competitive US aircraft of the day, were basically a chair with a jet engine attached. A couple of small wings for lift, and off you go.

The courage of an airman climbing into such a machine is remarkable.

This may be a silly question, but: how would an average American be able to afford the parts required to restore a fighter jet? It can’t be cheap? Am I correct to assume the person who did this is probably a person “of means”?

That model jet started production in 1952, so probably doesn't have much electronics or fancy materials.

Modern machinist tools are widely available and not totally unaffordable. I'd guess the current owner probably made a lot of their own replacement parts.

At an airshow, a mechanic told that a plane like the Fouga Magister (old two seat trainer with two really small jet engines, looks very graceful in the air in my opinion) is something that can be maintained by a single person. Don't know if that meant a full time job and how many flight hours per year etc.

I watched a video last night where someone was using a CNC to cut sheet metal. I wonder if one could make MiG parts using a CNC or 3d printer.

Imagine upgrading the avionics to modern computers too. After a while you'd have a MiG-17 of Theseus..

Just don't let the FAA catch wind of your undocumented supply chain...

Most warbirds are not experimental so you can't just build whatever you need and slap it on. Sure you can convert to experimental but you still have the high maintenance costs (FAR 43.1(b)(1)) is the section of law you should google)

Edit: someone looked up the tail number and this one got lucky but don't assume you can just slap your own machined parts on a P51 or something without jumping through hoops.

As if you're going to be able to get official replacement parts from the Soviet factories. I have to assume the person buying this is going to register it as some kind of experimental or historic aircraft where the regulations are looser. It's not like he's going to be carrying passengers at least.

China produced a copy of the MIG-17 (J-5) until the late 1980s, and both it and the MIG-17 were widely exported. I wouldn't be surprised if parts were available.

Was the power plant used in any long lived civilian applications? That could greatly help the parts situation. Still, for the airframe you're probably best off machining your own parts. You'll probably be able to make parts to tighter tolerances than the Soviet factories.

According to Wikipedia, they're still used as snowblowers and ice melters. And this engine isn't unique to the Mig-17, it was used in the Mig-15, IL-28 and Tu-14 bombers, and is one of the mostly widely produced jet engines in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1

Experimental exhibition has different rules from other categories, but the FAA also allows for owner produced parts on certified planes. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

Who knows what the regulations are for a Soviet warplane brought into the US but for most planes the owners are not able to just machine new parts unless the plane is under an experimental certification. A lot of home built planes are under experimental certification. Civilian factory built planes and US warbirds are not and so they can't just machine new parts freely or the airworthiness certificate is at risk.

The regulations go on forever. If you make new parts you risk having to re-certify the plane which makes an expensive and difficult project get much harder.

You can choose to register any aircraft as "experimental" it'll hurt resale value but there's nothing stopping you from modifying your Cessna or your F-16 except some paperwork.

Per the FAA's N-number lookup, it's experimental. I'm guessing Soviet aircraft built to destroy the US didn't bother with FAA certification.

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?N...

Probably not, but it would’ve been hilarious if they’d gotten one.

Yes, it would be extremely expensive. The price of the plane for something like this ends up being only a fraction of the total cost of operating it. Between needing to source or machine parts to specification (many of which will be titanium) and the frequent inspections and maintenance needed it's a lot of time and money to keep a plane like this running.

Flying a GA plane is already a fairly expensive hobby... flying warbirds can be on a whole 'nother level of expense.

The average American couldn't afford any airplane.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that let Pepsi bail on a jet fighter contract in the 90s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

Would have been more probable it were a Navy jet, since we know Pepsi once had a large navy. ;)

You'd be surprised. There are a lot really decent planes available around $30k.

Have some fun on Trade-A-Plane.com, look at single engine piston planes.

Around 30k represents half of the "average" American's yearly household income.[0] Once you factor in maintenance and storage it's safe to say most Americans couldn't afford even a "cheap" plane.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

For a 60+ year old Soviet airframe? When something breaks you're going to be manufacturing the replacement part yourself. If you buy this you had better have a machine shop handy.

The good news is that the guy who restored it undoubtedly has extensive notes about this particular aircraft, so it won't be quite as difficult to keep running. Still, you'd better be an expert in antique turbine engines if you want to fly it.

There's a whole world of (generally old) warbird enthusiasts who hoard hangars full of these old birds and spares for them. There's an associated world of auctioneers and brokers who sell it to them, then buy up the supply from their estate sales when they die and sell it to the next guy.

Soviet jets of that era were designed to be repaired by simpler means than fighter jets from even 40 years ago.

The big problem though is that Soviet jets weren't expected to last very long (in terms of flight hours). For example, jet engine life was much lower than comparable Western aircraft.

A couple comments at the bottom of the article make it sound like there are a few more airworthy ones out there.

There's quite a few MIG-17 with FAA registrations. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.asp...

The original article says it's the last airworthy MIG-17PF, while this site just says MIG-17. I suspect the PF is critical to the last airworthy claim. There were a number of variants of the MIG-17.

He should hang on to it until Top Gun 2 arrives. Could be money-making schemes will become available then.

What is the purpose of those spike things on the leading edge of the wings?

I'm not an expert and have forgotten most of my aerodynamics classes but I believe it's related to shockwave formation on the wing tips or possibly pitot tubes to measure airspeed as a function of pressure changes

They are Pitot tubes[1], part of the system that calculates the aircraft's altitude and speed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system

The large ones on the ends of the wings seem way too long to be pitot tubes.

Those are the two pitot tubes. The other tubes on the fuselage forward of the canopy are cannons. Aft of the canopy are radio aerials. This [1] only mentions the right-hand pitot tube, but since they appear to be identical, I assume it was just an oversight on the document's author.

[1]https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246...

It does seem they are.. the obvious reason for having one on both wings would be redundancy, pitot tubes are not that reliable.. You need to check & inspect & cover/uncover them in preflight/postflight cause bugs & dirt and such can easily clog them.

AFAICT they're so huge to get them out of the pressure effects on the wing from supersonic/transonic flight.

The Mig-21 giant spike over the nose is the same thing apparently.

Pretty interesting. It seems like a lot of US jets just have/had a different solution to this problem.

Actually reading your document the long spikes at the end of the wingtips are not mentioned as the Pitot tubes.. that document says the pitot tube is mounted on the right wing 1/4 of the distance in from the tip.

Yeah, I think that has to be a mistake, either in translation or just an error. They're obviously both pitot tubes, and there's nothing mount 1/4 of the distance from the wingtip.

The walkaround video answers that question and points out other cool features of the airframe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2-LprWf3NI

Those are pitot tubes as others have mentioned and there are two of them for the sake of aerodynamic balance.

Why do people venerate war machines? I understand the interest, but putting money into it? Surely there are better places that money can go.

You can ask that about pretty much every luxury good and hobby. The simple answer is that people do what interests them, not what is "better" (according to whatever your biased perspective is) for the world.

There’s no way you can pass off a fighter jet as a “hobby”. That’s intentional neglect of society at that point, and again to venerate a weapon.

It gets gray real fast. The Internet as we know it grew out of military research to maintain communication channels during nuclear war.

I’m not sure what your point is—the internet always had wider applicability than war.

Anyway, that neglects the point that both a MiG and military investment have piss-poor returns and you might as well burn the cash. Like how hard is it to invest in the people around you? What goes wrong in your life where you spend on a fucking MiG rather than feeding people? It’s sociopathic behavior.

Why are you here instead of out volunteering. Why are you using a computer when it could be sold to feed people.

I have a feeling you're starting to break the rules of this site. I'm not going to bother replying anymore.

I have no issues actually doing the things you’re mocking. I’m very secure in my own ability to contribute to society.

Oh god not the rules! How will this produce complacent founders?

Agreed, also the Space Race wasn't started because the US was embarrassed the Soviets could put up a satellite, it was because once you can launch a satellite, you can launch a nuclear bomb anywhere in the world.

I'd rather live in a world with a few people wasting wealth on frivolous hobbies than in a world with judgy busybodies scrutinizing my personal expenses.

Thankfully it’s not up for individuals to decide.

It's just a "jet" at this point, there's nothing "fighter" about it anymore.

That would only be true if he were restoring in order to shoot down other aircraft.

It seems like there's two parts to your disapproval.

1. Effort is expended that could be allocated towards helping the poor, hungry, and sick. (Money being an abstraction layer over "effort"). This is immoral.

This is also true of every leisure activity and many jobs including the creation of art, music, and literature. You may wish to argue against all of those things but "all leisure is sin" will find little support, as most people want there to be something to enjoy in life.

2. Because this plane was created for war it is a dirty, ugly thing that should be discarded.

That's a matter of personal opinion. Some people will agree, but there are reasons not to. Just off the top of my head:

* Preserving this preserves a historical artifact. Keeping this plane in flying condition enables people today to see what it was like in use. It is important both as a part of cultural history (the cold war) and technical history (as an engineering development)

* There is beauty in a well-built machine. Jet aircraft are awe-inspiring in general. A fighter is built not only to carry weapons but for great speed and maneuverability. Disarmed, it still has an appeal far greater than a Gulfstream. It is like comparing an F1 car to a Toyota Camry. The latter is a lot more practical, but the former was built to do the extreme.

* It's a fighter, not a gas chamber. It's a weapon specifically designed to fight other warplanes and to get shot back at. Somebody flying a plane like this in a war is a target as often as they are an aggressor. It might have kept the guy flying it alive under fire.

Yup there’s that sociopathic alienation that’s normalized in the tech industry.

Can you elaborate on what that means?

You’ve provided a standard list of values that are apparently worth more than human life.

I don't think somebody restoring and flying this plane takes any human lives. There is the opportunity cost argument -- you could've used that money/effort to save lives instead -- but again, you gotta condemn basically every form of leisure to go that route. That doesn't work.

Is it a weapon if it has no weapon capabilities? Its just a fast plane. Also, weapons can still be a hobby.

It sounds like his hobby is both aerospace engineering and sports flying, which sounds like a fun combination in my opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com